WASHINGTON -- President Obama's complaints about the Supreme Court's critical review of his health care law suggests that he has a real problem with the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.

He also seems to have a problem understanding that the court is a "co-equal" branch of government. Its powers are set forth in the Constitution. This is not some obscure government body that can be lectured about its duties and insulted as nothing more than -- in Obama's words -- "an unelected group of people."

Just a few days after the highest court in the land heard three days of oral arguments on a lawsuit brought by 26 states against the health care mandate, Obama seemed to be issuing a not-so-veiled warning to the justices, some of whom appeared to suggest that they may be prepared to strike it down.

Obama, in very blunt language, was essentially lodging a pre-emptive attack on the justices -- rare for a president in a pending case -- flatly telling them that striking down his mandate would be an unacceptable act of "judicial activism."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," he said in a Rose Garden news conference Monday.

"Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama added.

And if the judges didn't get his message, he added that it would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the court to strike down the mandate in a law passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Excuse me, Mr. President, but the vote by which a law was passed is irrelevant to whether it is unconstitutional or not. As it happens, the law was passed by the slimmest of margins along party lines.

This is a president who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, who graduated from Harvard Law School, who was president of the Harvard Law Review.

Did he miss the class that dealt with the separation of powers doctrine? Did he forget the lecture in Constitutional Law 101 about the Supreme Court's inherent authority as a co-equal branch of government?

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests the court is an inferior branch of government because the justices are "unelected" and the president and members of Congress are elected by the people.

Indeed, in Article III of the Constitution, it clearly states "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court ..."

And there are no restrictions on the court's purview. Indeed, it says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States."

And what's this business about "unprecedented" if the court should strike down Obamacare? That's what the court has done in countless cases throughout our history, striking down laws that violate the Constitution -- from Marbury v. Madison in 1803 to anti-free speech laws in campaign finance reform.

Maybe Obama skipped his law class on the day it took up the Supreme Court's decisions in 1936 when it struck down 16 pieces of New Deal legislation. At least President Roosevelt had the decency to wait until he had won re-election before attacking the court on that one.

Obviously, the president knows full well that the court under Chief Justice John Roberts has overturned a lot of laws in some major cases.

There was the historic ruling striking down the handgun ban in the District of Columbia in which the court said the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" means exactly what it says.

There was the deconstruction of much of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms that imposed severely unconstitutional restrictions on political freedom of speech.

And there was the decision in the Citizens United case that corporations were just like people and should be free to contribute money to the candidates of their choice.

That ruling really stirred the president's ire in his 2010 State of the Union address. In an unprecedented public display of presidential petulance, with the embarrassed robed justices sitting before him, Obama charged the court had "reversed a century of law" that would "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence the outcome of political campaigns. Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing the words, "Not true."

Obama's feigned outrage didn't last long. His campaign set up a super-PAC to accept business contributions from Wall Street and the like that his fundraising handlers hope will push his total contributions to the $1 billion mark.

Still, Obama's outburst, months before the court will hand down its health care ruling, was a rarity in presidential posturing.

"Though past presidents have occasionally inveighed against judicial activism, legal analysts and historians said it was difficult to find a historical parallel to match Obama's willingness to directly confront the court," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

This was a performance dripping in politics, and Obama was preaching to the choir to energize his party's base at a time when polls show voters aren't very enthused about their choices in this election.

The nearly $2 trillion health care law is widely unpopular, especially the mandate that forces uninsured Americans to buy health insurance they do not want or cannot afford.

Obama says he expects the court will uphold the law, and the White House says there is no "Plan B." They had better get one soon, because this mandate is going down.

I want to see this imposter’s law school records. I want his records at Univ of Chicago made public. I don’t believe he has a clue about constitutional law and it’s about time the press get curious as to why.

He understands. Obama is trying to discredit our system of checks and balances with his ignorant followers. They don’t understand how the system is intended to work or how important it is that it works as intended, and they don’t care. It’s a ploy to get more votes by stirring up hate for the system.

15
posted on 04/04/2012 5:41:35 AM PDT
by SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)

There’s been little coverage of Barry’s younger days as a student and professor. As I recall Bush, Gore, Kerry and others have released college transcripts. What is Barry hiding? I’d like to see an enterprising journalist find some of his ex-students to get their take on the Maxist and perhaps learn about some of his lectures on the Constitution.

What’s the affirmative action poser hiding? I suspect a lot.

16
posted on 04/04/2012 5:44:22 AM PDT
by Oldeconomybuyer
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)

Ive been growing weary of hearing people mention that hes a constitutional scholar, since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But heyhe taught constitutional law, didnt he?

Not really.

His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendmentthe favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.

This is a president who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, who graduated from Harvard Law School, who was president of the Harvard Law Review.

________________________________

I don’t think he actually taught *Constitutional Law,* because he he taught as a lecturer and then a senior lecturer. I think he taught related courses. And he NEVER published anything. Now that IS unprecedented (particularly with regard to his position at the Harvard Law Review).

One course he taught was “Current Issues in Racism and the Law.” His other courses had to do with Voting Rights and Due Process and Equal Protection.

My wife came to this country, studied hard at the kitchen table for a few months, and passed her citizenship test with a 100% score. The examiner kept asking her questions after she passed because he got a kick out of how she knew everything. I guarantee she and every other legal immigrant knows more about this country than Obama.

Won't happen because the insurance industry would turn on Barry just as fast and as viciously as they turned on Hillary in '93.

They were cool with all this so long as Obama was going to march 50 million new paying customers into their arms at gunpoint. If that is off the table they aren't going to swallow the Obama crap sandwich.

It will be wall-to-wall Harry and Louise ads from now till the election.

>> the elena I donts need to recuse kegan leaked the supremes vote to the commie obama and he responded with threats and intimidation

I see it differently.

Consider who on the court might actually be influenced by Barky’s dumb comment.

Not Alito, not Scalia, not Thomas, not Roberts. (Well, maybe in the negative: if, say, Roberts was sympathetic to the Government’s case, this threat would likely remove that sympathy).

Kennedy? Who know — who EVER knows about Kennedy. Who cares.

However, Sotemeyer, Kagan and Ginsburg are liberals, true, but they’re also liberal WOMEN who take their role AS PROFESSIONAL JURISTS VERY SERIOUSLY. They have huge egos and DO NOT want to be perceived as anyone’s reliable “lap dog”, especially not a male executive — not even Barack Obama.

Suppose any *one* of the three liberal women is at all convinced that the States’ position is the most righteous and defensible position from a legal (read: professional) point of view. To vote their liberal partisanship against their professional better judgment is OK as long as it’s perceive to be THEIR OWN (e.g. “WISE LATINA”) judgment.

But if they go partisan instead of righeous NOW, *after* Barky threatened them, it’ll be viewed by the outside world as being “pwned by a male”. Their female professional egos WILL NOT tolerate that!

If ANY ONE of them, as a consequence of Barky’s threat, votes with the conservative 4 to avoid being pwned by Barky, there’s your 5-4, REGARDLESS of how Kennedy votes.

That’s lots of conjecture, I agree. But I think this will backfire seriously badly on Boy President, and it *might* be the liberal women on the court who spank him. I think it could go 7-2 or even 8-1 against Barky.

37
posted on 04/04/2012 6:16:38 AM PDT
by Nervous Tick
(Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)

And yet, he thinks there are exceptions to the Equal Protection Clause. According to him, Terri Schiavo was not entitled to equal protection, and neither is any other disabled person. If they’re competent enough to defend themselves they might have that right, as long as it doesn’t involve exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, but they are not entitled to equal protection of the laws.

Obama finally got his chance to have the Supreme Court bring about the largest "redistribution" in American History. When it looks like it might not happen, all he can do Lash Out like the Community Organizer he really is.

Obama 2001:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it Id be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states cant do to you. Says what the federal government cant do to you, but doesnt say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasnt shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," he said in a Rose Garden news conference Monday.

"Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama added.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.